Author
Topic: WinXP is officially dead! (Read 39050 times)

The time to criticize MS (and by extension those who build MS tools) for dropping XP support is long gone. The inferiority of any successor doesn't make it ok to expect extended support. If the successors are poor, find an alternative. If alternatives don't exist hold your nose and move to that inferior successor.

The time to criticize MS (and by extension those who build MS tools) for dropping XP support is long gone. The inferiority of any successor doesn't make it ok to expect extended support. If the successors are poor, find an alternative. If alternatives don't exist hold your nose and move to that inferior successor.

I can understand Microsoft not wanting to support it, since they are not going to make any more money from XP if they do or don't, so they might as well not, and push XP users into upgrading and putting more money in their pockets. That does make sense.

What I don't understand is 3rd party developers that make their money off supporting their apps running on whatever platforms their customers are using. If there are still a large chunk of people running XP, why turn them away from buying and using your software, by not supporting XP? Flushing all that cash down the toilet is kind of self-defeating, don't you think?

I can understand Microsoft not wanting to support it, since they are not going to make any more money from XP if they do or don't, so they might as well not, and push XP users into upgrading and putting more money in their pockets. That does make sense.

What I don't understand is 3rd party developers that make their money off supporting their apps running on whatever platforms their customers are using. If there are still a large chunk of people running XP, why turn them away from buying and using your software, by not supporting XP? Flushing all that cash down the toilet is kind of self-defeating, don't you think?

What I don't understand is 3rd party developers that make their money off supporting their apps running on whatever platforms their customers are using. If there are still a large chunk of people running XP, why turn them away from buying and using your software, by not supporting XP? Flushing all that cash down the toilet is kind of self-defeating, don't you think?

There are a lot of decisions that go into supporting platforms. And apparently there is some data point (presumably based on money) that causes this kind of decision making. Happens all the time in business.

What I don't understand is 3rd party developers that make their money off supporting their apps running on whatever platforms their customers are using. If there are still a large chunk of people running XP, why turn them away from buying and using your software, by not supporting XP? Flushing all that cash down the toilet is kind of self-defeating, don't you think?

For a small indy developer, I think it comes down to accepting XP is now an orphan which will remain running until the inevitable major malware attack finally renders it unsafe to use under any circumstances. At which point, if the small dev doesn't have a product ready for the new version of Windows, they're out of business. And since development resources are limited it's smarter, in the long run, to start developing now for the future rather than hoping to continue to mine the past for as long as possible.

For big developers and those (antimalware app devs for example) who need access to proprietary internal information that goes beyond what an MSDN subscription will get you - or who need a friendly "heads-up" about planned (but non-publicized) changes - it's not a good idea to appear to be working at cross purposes to Microsoft. You could get taken off distribution for all the inside info (i.e the type of detail you usually need an invite and a signed non-disclosure agreement to get access to) that big devs rely on for their own product development efforts. If Microsoft says XP is over - then it's over as far as these guys are concerned.

I can understand Microsoft not wanting to support it, since they are not going to make any more money from XP if they do or don't, so they might as well not, and push XP users into upgrading and putting more money in their pockets. That does make sense.

What I don't understand is 3rd party developers that make their money off supporting their apps running on whatever platforms their customers are using. If there are still a large chunk of people running XP, why turn them away from buying and using your software, by not supporting XP? Flushing all that cash down the toilet is kind of self-defeating, don't you think?

Well I dunno if it's cash, I don't have many "subscriptions" going. But for me it's an Ill Will thing. I don't really feel I'm in any shape to upgrade right now. So I just wish the devs would roll out their updates to XP as well. A bunch of them have.

For a small indy developer, I think it comes down to accepting XP is now an orphan which will remain running until the inevitable major malware attack finally renders it unsafe to use under any circumstances. ...

...it's not a good idea to appear to be working at cross purposes to Microsoft. You could get taken off distribution for all the inside info (i.e the type of detail you usually need an invite and a signed non-disclosure agreement to get access to) that big devs rely on for their own product development efforts. If Microsoft says XP is over - then it's over as far as these guys are concerned.

And I daresay I am part of the problem who will continue to use XP even after major malware attacks! Just because I think this is a special time in computing history. The OS gang seems to want to flip their OS's really fast - MS catching up to Apple and Linux in that respect. Other than that I am a laggard, the basic run of XP feels about right to me - nice and steady. This "We'll stop supporting an OS after about four or fewer years" really makes me nervous!

This comment surprised me, and it's why I gave out one of my MouserBucks to 40hz just now. I get it if devs are just playing simple economics; while it doesn't make me happy, at least chapter 3 of the economics text explains it. And a few of the devs of my favorite apps at least promise to try to support it for a couple more years.

It's a whole other level of sinister if MS decides to get vicious and start playing "leverage games". Fine, stop supporting the OS for your own reasons, but don't turn around and start pressuring the devs of apps with information access blackmail!!

Nobody ever said to ignore the newer OSs in favor of the old, and not develop for them. That would be nuts! But if someone like mouser can develop software that works on old unsupported versions of Windows, as well as the latest, why can't others do the same?

I guess my gripe goes back to my old 9x days, when it became increasingly hard to find versions of software that worked with it, 3 years before MS retired it. And I am not even talking about security software...I am talking about ordinary stuff, some of which the latest version would run quite well on 9x, but the developer decided to block installs on those OSs.

There was no excuse for it that I could see, till I contacted a developer once to ask him and was introduced to nasty the world of OS bigotry. It happened to be a freeware app, and the developer said some really nasty stuff to me, equating my value as a human being to the OS I was running. One of the things he told me was that my OS was for poor people and he doesn't develop (freeware) for people that can't afford to pay.

In his world, the cool people spit on 9x users (and others), to feel good about themselves. These are the same kind of people that did nasty things to IE6 users, with their obnoxious banners telling them to install a "real" browser, even when their sites worked perfectly well in IE6. And the same kind of people that auto-banned anyone with an AOL IP address from their chat rooms or forums, with the reason of "get a real ISP".

I am just wondering exactly when it will become cool to do the same to XP users. Just because I only own 1 machine that still runs XP and have no intentions on booting it up unless it's an extreme emergency, doesn't mean that I will condone the kind of uncalled for OS bigotry that XP users will soon face. It will still bring out the angry warrior in me, when I see it. (if you have a legitimate reason for not supporting XP, then ok, but I won't tolerate OS bigotry)

In other words, please don't make me have to brush the thick layer of dust off my old Snailware blog and add a Wall of Shame page for the names of OS bigots. I would like to leave that blog dormant, for as long as possible.

I am just wondering exactly when it will become cool to do the same to XP users. Just because I only own 1 machine that still runs XP and have no intentions on booting it up unless it's an extreme emergency, doesn't mean that I will condone the kind of uncalled for OS bigotry that XP users will soon face. It will still bring out the angry warrior in me, when I see it. (if you have a legitimate reason for not supporting XP, then ok, but I won't tolerate OS bigotry)

I hear you and feel your pain. About all I can say is when (and if) it ever does happen: Welcome to my world.

I've been putting up with snark and insults for years as a GNU/Linux user and semi-advocate. I've even gotten some of it from people here - which came as a real surprise. I find it pretty interesting that a totally free OS and ecosystem can generate so much spleen from people who are paying a tidy sum for what they're using - and who are being systematically and regularly abused by the companies that are selling it to them.

Then there's that part I'll never get - users dumping on fellow users...

But I guess it's small surprise it all turns on its self from time to time. That's to be expected whenever discussions turn religious, like OS 'discussions' so often do.

But seriously, this seems like a trend in the industry to me that is being greatly enhanced by cloud subscriptions making it easy to force people's hands. As an example, here's something I ran into just last week.

Customer has a cloud based mission critical business app that stores all of their records in PDF format. The app does not however have any way of viewing/editing/printing said record, it just stores them with status information regarding how complete project X is. The actual document handling bit is done by an external application that I'm sure you've guessed by now.

Now here's the fun part ... The cloud does an "update" that causes the clients local system to start throwing errors all over the place. Nobody bothers to read the errors - they just assume they are really complicated and stuff - so I get called in. I read the below error message:

So now all of their worked fine just yesterday copies of Adobe Acrobat 9 (which Adobe just dropped support for a recently) are completely and instantly useless ... Will that be cash or charge? Nice and totally pointlessly draconian enforcement of an upgrade policy...Huh?

Mind you all documents involved were generated by a Multi-Function Printer that is still generating v1.1 (embedded image only) PDFs ... Which is the normal workflow for the application so with zero functional reason this really was just flat out mean.

Nobody ever said to ignore the newer OSs in favor of the old, and not develop for them. That would be nuts! But if someone like mouser can develop software that works on old unsupported versions of Windows, as well as the latest, why can't others do the same?

Mouser does it for the love of it. And he develops in C (++?). Those two things get rid of many obstacles. My software? As long as I can develop one time with no problems... sure, I'll release it. And also say that compatibility isn't guaranteed. Too many headaches otherwise.

I spotted this in the Cacheman Changelog, while I was updating Cacheman on my Win XP netbook. And it does seem to work. I have just installed 8 Microsoft security updates this morning. No idea how much protection this really offers (I also have AVG on it), but it's perhaps better than nothing...

I expect that option fakes your installation into pretending it is one of these... does it say support will extend to January or to April?

Two Windows XP Embedded products will lose extended support in 2016, while two others face 2019 end-of-life dates, according to the post:

"Windows XP Embedded Service Pack 3 (SP3). This is the original toolkit and componentized version of Windows XP. It was originally released in 2002, and Extended Support will end on Jan. 12, 2016.""Windows Embedded for Point of Service SP3. This product is for use in Point of Sale devices. It's built from Windows XP Embedded. It was originally released in 2005, and Extended Support will end on April 12, 2016.""Windows Embedded Standard 2009. This product is an updated release of the toolkit and componentized version of Windows XP. It was originally released in 2008; and Extended Support will end on Jan. 8, 2019.""Windows Embedded POSReady 2009. This product for point-of-sale devices reflects the updates available in Windows Embedded Standard 2009. It was originally released in 2009, and extended support will end on April 9, 2019."